New livery, is it necessary?Back to Forum
Anonymous19 Jan 2011
Since last year there are a couple of livery revamps among airlines. notably, Qantas, Garuda, Air France, Finnair and just now, JAL.
I personally think, Qantas and Garuda’s new logo and livery are nice, while Air France looks smarter, but it’s not the case with the other two, Finnair looks too simple and JAL, it looks so outdated, what do you think? Do you think it is necessary for them to do it?19 Jan 2011
Often there are less aesthetic reasons for the newly designed liveries, such as saving paint (the weight is remarkably significant for fuel efficiency), the introduction of new aircraft, or other reasons such as accumulation of dirt in areas to which the present scheme draws attention.
I think, though may be wrong on this, that the very subtle redesign of the Qantas kangaroo was partially brought about because of the way it would fit onto the tail of the A380.
When you consider the cost of rebranding all the very many items used by an airline, it is not something which should be undertaken lightly! Even now you often see some of the old BA speedmarques on carts on the galley.19 Jan 2011
firstly, thanks for the info about the weight, i did not know that, since the “spray” technique use to paint the aircraft gives an impression that it is as light as air. With this in mind, i would assume AA saves a lot?
secondly, I am aware about the cost involved in rebranding and revamping, thanks to Finnair for stating their cost of EUR 10 Millions for creating the “fresher and more modern livery” (in which i disagree), in the news, quiet shock at first, but i guess living in the capitalist society we should brace ourselves for the worst, AA livery for all airlines in the next 10 to 20 years?
The amount of the cost involve is actually why I started this discussion, JAL had just filed for bankruptcy and I find their current livery is among the nicest, why bothered to spent a lot of money to invent a new one that looks worst while they can use it for something better, revamping their sloping J class for instance?
While for BA, i like the simplicity of their livery, but I don’t really get what’s their company logo mean.19 Jan 2011
AA do still have significant costs in their livery. The aircraft may look “nude” but it is far from that in terms of metal finishing. It just doesnt have paint, but it still has significant costs to ensure the finish remains as polished years down the line.19 Jan 2011
VK’s point on the old speedmarque on BA catering carts reminded me of the wealth of history you can soemtimes see on the catering trays and storage in the galley on airlines’ older aircraft, especially if they have had a variety of owners. One of those I saw on the Ethiopian 767 I have moaned about ad nauseam on the forum actually carried the logo of the long since defunct Air Europe and another Cathay Pacific. Not sure either of them operated 767s…..19 Jan 2011
Yes, the Qantas reworking of the flying kangaroo symbol was because of the size of the A380 tail … however, can anyone in JAL HQ tell me why they have, yet again, decided on a re-do. But not any new re-do, they are back to the crane symbol they had used for decades. With great respect to them, I think the Japanese believe a “change” of logo means everyone will think its become a new airline. The packaging is one thing. Service quality, on time rankings etc., are indeed another. Same with EgyptAir. New logos etc but same old sad operation.17 Mar 2011
One comment on paints – Nanotechnology now permits paints to offer a microscopically thin and smooth surface that aids airflow, gives self-clean and water / oil / pollutant resistance. Drag is reduced and more than offsets the weight of the paint. Easyjet are running trials and aim to save 1%-2% of their fuel bill.
(I declare an interest : I have invested in a Nanotechnology business.)18 Mar 2011